Indictment Monday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Trump and his supporters are not challenging the substance. They are challenging process. Which means, he did what he's accused of. Guilty people act in this manner.
2) I've yet to hear from Trump or ANY of his supporters why he shouldn't be indicted, on substantive terms. I don't want to hear about witch hunts, bias, etc. A Grand Jury has indicted him. Regardless of whether the initiation of proceeding was "politically motivated" (and I truly don't care at this point), they obviously found enough to charge him. So: why don't any of you care?
3) Trump supporters can take your charges of political motivation and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Trump bullied his way through life, legal proceedings, his presidency. You reap what you sow. Ya'll were the first ones to chant "lock her up" before the Trump v. Clinton election and then POOOF! magically forgot about all your hysterial allegations after the elections. The very definition of political motivation . . . The entire Comey thing and entire hysterical overreaction by Trump supports. So SUCK.IT.UP.

Not true. We are saying it is not a crime. Big difference.
I will wait to see the indictment to look at specific details, but if Bragg is hanging his hat on the whole hush money deal:
a. It is not illegal to pay hush money. Most important thing.
b. If he is claiming he did this because of the upcoming election - good luck with that. He would have to prove intent. Who is to say, if the money was paid, it was to protect him from having his wife learn about it. And, if Michael Cohen is the witness to testify to this, well LOL. He already testified that Trump was not aware he paid the money.
c. If (b) is true, that is a federal offense, not a NY state offense. And, federal officials declined to prosecute - likely because it wasn't a crime.
d. If (b) is true - statute of limitations has expired.

It has never occurred to you that there could be corroborating evidence showing intent?

It really doesn't matter. There are multiple reasons, so trying to claim a campaign finance violation is weak, and this has already been shown with the John Edwards case.
Now this is a New York case, not federal, and they can't prosecute campaign finance violations. They are trying to claim it was an illegitimate business expense,
but companies pay these sorts of things all the time. I would guess that every media outlet reporting on this indictment has made these payments and listed them as business expenses.

Companies pay off porn stars all the time and claim it as a legitimate business expense? Do tell us which companies.

DP

Companies pay all the time to make problems go away. This could be things that have bad publicity, to computer hacking.

As an aside, until recent memory German companies could claim bribes on their taxes as a business expense which is hilarious.

NY State is not Germany and you still did not name the companies which pay off porn stars as you claimed these.unnnamed companies routinely pay off.

The great state of New York has given us Donald Trump, Michael Cohen, Anthony Weiner, the Cuomo brothers, elliott Spitzer, Rudy Giuliani...just amazing the kind of men who grow up there.

NY kicked trump to the curb. NY knew full well he was a low quality con artist. It was a bunch of ignorant voters in other states that voted that crook into office.

But he is a New Yorker, as are the others. Not men of character.

The NY voters knew better than to elect a obnoxious poor quality real estate putz from queens. Wake up the rest of you...

[Anonymous]

He's just so very dumb.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still no response to this. Likely because there is no "good" answer to the blatant bias.

These are apple and oranges violations. Clinton was accused of misrepresenting the payments on a form filed with the FEC, not business forms filed with the state. As such, Clinton was fined by the FEC but doesn't appear to have violated any state laws.

Trump was also investigated by the FEC but the case was dropped when Republican members of the Commission voted to drop the case. This despite the recommendation by the General Counsel that the Commission find that Trump violated multiple campaign finance laws. So, the real question you should ask is why Trump didn't receive the same penalty that Clinton did? Trump clearly benefited from preferential treatment by the FEC.

How can a city's/county's DA prosecute a federal crime?

They can't and there is no indication that Bragg intends to do so. While we haven't seen the indictment, it is expected that Trump will be charged with violating New York State laws regarding the falsification of business records.

In the course of paying off Stormy Daniels, Trump appears to have violated Federal campaign expense laws, but was not prosecuted for doing so (contrary to Clinton who was fined). But, he also misreported the expenses in violation of state law. Additionally, he may be on the hook for tax code violations. The indictment should be an interesting read.

Where does Obama taking foreign donations fall?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Trump and his supporters are not challenging the substance. They are challenging process. Which means, he did what he's accused of. Guilty people act in this manner.
2) I've yet to hear from Trump or ANY of his supporters why he shouldn't be indicted, on substantive terms. I don't want to hear about witch hunts, bias, etc. A Grand Jury has indicted him. Regardless of whether the initiation of proceeding was "politically motivated" (and I truly don't care at this point), they obviously found enough to charge him. So: why don't any of you care?
3) Trump supporters can take your charges of political motivation and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Trump bullied his way through life, legal proceedings, his presidency. You reap what you sow. Ya'll were the first ones to chant "lock her up" before the Trump v. Clinton election and then POOOF! magically forgot about all your hysterial allegations after the elections. The very definition of political motivation . . . The entire Comey thing and entire hysterical overreaction by Trump supports. So SUCK.IT.UP.

Not true. We are saying it is not a crime. Big difference.
I will wait to see the indictment to look at specific details, but if Bragg is hanging his hat on the whole hush money deal:
a. It is not illegal to pay hush money. Most important thing.
b. If he is claiming he did this because of the upcoming election - good luck with that. He would have to prove intent. Who is to say, if the money was paid, it was to protect him from having his wife learn about it. And, if Michael Cohen is the witness to testify to this, well LOL. He already testified that Trump was not aware he paid the money.
c. If (b) is true, that is a federal offense, not a NY state offense. And, federal officials declined to prosecute - likely because it wasn't a crime.
d. If (b) is true - statute of limitations has expired.

It has never occurred to you that there could be corroborating evidence showing intent?

It really doesn't matter. There are multiple reasons, so trying to claim a campaign finance violation is weak, and this has already been shown with the John Edwards case.
Now this is a New York case, not federal, and they can't prosecute campaign finance violations. They are trying to claim it was an illegitimate business expense,
but companies pay these sorts of things all the time. I would guess that every media outlet reporting on this indictment has made these payments and listed them as business expenses.

Companies pay off porn stars all the time and claim it as a legitimate business expense? Do tell us which companies.

DP

Companies pay all the time to make problems go away. This could be things that have bad publicity, to computer hacking.

As an aside, until recent memory German companies could claim bribes on their taxes as a business expense which is hilarious.

NY State is not Germany and you still did not name the companies which pay off porn stars as you claimed these.unnnamed companies routinely pay off.

LOL.
You must be aware that our Congress has paid out over $17 million in making sexual harassment cases go away.

That's really not relevant. Trump was not settling a harassment case in the first place. Secondly, he could have legally made the payment to Daniels but instead tried to hide it by falsifying his business records. That's why he has been indicted and no one in Congress has been.

Nothing will ever be ‘relevant’. Not even HB falsifying a gun form and acquiring a gun when he was a convicted felon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He's just so very dumb.

He’s also a classic example of projection. Weaponizing all those institutions is what the Republicans have done.

I know the GOP naysayers are busy spreading their filth all over this page but is anyone else as happy as I am about this? I had really begun to think that Donnie wasn’t going to feel any legal consequences at all, and he is. He’s the biggest POS ex president and 34 counts? That’s not a sniff.

This is just great news and it should be celebrated.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Trump and his supporters are not challenging the substance. They are challenging process. Which means, he did what he's accused of. Guilty people act in this manner.
2) I've yet to hear from Trump or ANY of his supporters why he shouldn't be indicted, on substantive terms. I don't want to hear about witch hunts, bias, etc. A Grand Jury has indicted him. Regardless of whether the initiation of proceeding was "politically motivated" (and I truly don't care at this point), they obviously found enough to charge him. So: why don't any of you care?
3) Trump supporters can take your charges of political motivation and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Trump bullied his way through life, legal proceedings, his presidency. You reap what you sow. Ya'll were the first ones to chant "lock her up" before the Trump v. Clinton election and then POOOF! magically forgot about all your hysterial allegations after the elections. The very definition of political motivation . . . The entire Comey thing and entire hysterical overreaction by Trump supports. So SUCK.IT.UP.

Not true. We are saying it is not a crime. Big difference.
I will wait to see the indictment to look at specific details, but if Bragg is hanging his hat on the whole hush money deal:
a. It is not illegal to pay hush money. Most important thing.
b. If he is claiming he did this because of the upcoming election - good luck with that. He would have to prove intent. Who is to say, if the money was paid, it was to protect him from having his wife learn about it. And, if Michael Cohen is the witness to testify to this, well LOL. He already testified that Trump was not aware he paid the money.
c. If (b) is true, that is a federal offense, not a NY state offense. And, federal officials declined to prosecute - likely because it wasn't a crime.
d. If (b) is true - statute of limitations has expired.

It has never occurred to you that there could be corroborating evidence showing intent?

It really doesn't matter. There are multiple reasons, so trying to claim a campaign finance violation is weak, and this has already been shown with the John Edwards case.
Now this is a New York case, not federal, and they can't prosecute campaign finance violations. They are trying to claim it was an illegitimate business expense,
but companies pay these sorts of things all the time. I would guess that every media outlet reporting on this indictment has made these payments and listed them as business expenses.

Companies pay off porn stars all the time and claim it as a legitimate business expense? Do tell us which companies.

DP

Companies pay all the time to make problems go away. This could be things that have bad publicity, to computer hacking.

As an aside, until recent memory German companies could claim bribes on their taxes as a business expense which is hilarious.

NY State is not Germany and you still did not name the companies which pay off porn stars as you claimed these.unnnamed companies routinely pay off.

LOL.
You must be aware that our Congress has paid out over $17 million in making sexual harassment cases go away.

That's really not relevant. Trump was not settling a harassment case in the first place. Secondly, he could have legally made the payment to Daniels but instead tried to hide it by falsifying his business records. That's why he has been indicted and no one in Congress has been.

Nothing will ever be ‘relevant’. Not even HB falsifying a gun form and acquiring a gun when he was a convicted felon.

He is currently under investigation. But, those allegations are certainly not relevant to Trump's violations. Too bad that you only have "whataboutisms" and can't carry on a substantive discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He's just so very dumb.

I agree he sounds a little crazy. But there is some truth to what he is saying.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Trump and his supporters are not challenging the substance. They are challenging process. Which means, he did what he's accused of. Guilty people act in this manner.
2) I've yet to hear from Trump or ANY of his supporters why he shouldn't be indicted, on substantive terms. I don't want to hear about witch hunts, bias, etc. A Grand Jury has indicted him. Regardless of whether the initiation of proceeding was "politically motivated" (and I truly don't care at this point), they obviously found enough to charge him. So: why don't any of you care?
3) Trump supporters can take your charges of political motivation and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Trump bullied his way through life, legal proceedings, his presidency. You reap what you sow. Ya'll were the first ones to chant "lock her up" before the Trump v. Clinton election and then POOOF! magically forgot about all your hysterial allegations after the elections. The very definition of political motivation . . . The entire Comey thing and entire hysterical overreaction by Trump supports. So SUCK.IT.UP.

Not true. We are saying it is not a crime. Big difference.
I will wait to see the indictment to look at specific details, but if Bragg is hanging his hat on the whole hush money deal:
a. It is not illegal to pay hush money. Most important thing.
b. If he is claiming he did this because of the upcoming election - good luck with that. He would have to prove intent. Who is to say, if the money was paid, it was to protect him from having his wife learn about it. And, if Michael Cohen is the witness to testify to this, well LOL. He already testified that Trump was not aware he paid the money.
c. If (b) is true, that is a federal offense, not a NY state offense. And, federal officials declined to prosecute - likely because it wasn't a crime.
d. If (b) is true - statute of limitations has expired.

It has never occurred to you that there could be corroborating evidence showing intent?

It really doesn't matter. There are multiple reasons, so trying to claim a campaign finance violation is weak, and this has already been shown with the John Edwards case.
Now this is a New York case, not federal, and they can't prosecute campaign finance violations. They are trying to claim it was an illegitimate business expense,
but companies pay these sorts of things all the time. I would guess that every media outlet reporting on this indictment has made these payments and listed them as business expenses.

Companies pay off porn stars all the time and claim it as a legitimate business expense? Do tell us which companies.

DP

Companies pay all the time to make problems go away. This could be things that have bad publicity, to computer hacking.

As an aside, until recent memory German companies could claim bribes on their taxes as a business expense which is hilarious.

NY State is not Germany and you still did not name the companies which pay off porn stars as you claimed these.unnnamed companies routinely pay off.

LOL.
You must be aware that our Congress has paid out over $17 million in making sexual harassment cases go away.

That's really not relevant. Trump was not settling a harassment case in the first place. Secondly, he could have legally made the payment to Daniels but instead tried to hide it by falsifying his business records. That's why he has been indicted and no one in Congress has been.

Nothing will ever be ‘relevant’. Not even HB falsifying a gun form and acquiring a gun when he was a convicted felon.

He is currently under investigation. But, those allegations are certainly not relevant to Trump's violations. Too bad that you only have "whataboutisms" and can't carry on a substantive discussion.

There is no precedent for indicting a current or former US president or their family is there?

That is not because they have never violated the law.

This is clearly selective prosecution.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still no response to this. Likely because there is no "good" answer to the blatant bias.

These are apple and oranges violations. Clinton was accused of misrepresenting the payments on a form filed with the FEC, not business forms filed with the state. As such, Clinton was fined by the FEC but doesn't appear to have violated any state laws.

Trump was also investigated by the FEC but the case was dropped when Republican members of the Commission voted to drop the case. This despite the recommendation by the General Counsel that the Commission find that Trump violated multiple campaign finance laws. So, the real question you should ask is why Trump didn't receive the same penalty that Clinton did? Trump clearly benefited from preferential treatment by the FEC.

How can a city's/county's DA prosecute a federal crime?

They can't and there is no indication that Bragg intends to do so. While we haven't seen the indictment, it is expected that Trump will be charged with violating New York State laws regarding the falsification of business records.

In the course of paying off Stormy Daniels, Trump appears to have violated Federal campaign expense laws, but was not prosecuted for doing so (contrary to Clinton who was fined). But, he also misreported the expenses in violation of state law. Additionally, he may be on the hook for tax code violations. The indictment should be an interesting read.

Where does Obama taking foreign donations fall?

You are making quite the effort to divert this discussion to off-topic whataboutisms. There was a fraudulent conspiracy by foreign nationals to make donations to to Obama's campaign. The DOJ indicted the foreign nationals for this:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/entertainerbusinessman-and-malaysian-financier-indicted-conspiring-make-and-conceal-foreign

Obama's campaign was the victim of the fraud and not involved in the crime.

So, apparently, you are asking how a conspiracy by foreign nationals to fraudulently disguise payments fits in with Trump's conspiracy to fraudulently disguise a payment. I think the fit is pretty close and, therefore, Trump's indictment is consistent with the indictments of the foreign nationals.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Trump and his supporters are not challenging the substance. They are challenging process. Which means, he did what he's accused of. Guilty people act in this manner.
2) I've yet to hear from Trump or ANY of his supporters why he shouldn't be indicted, on substantive terms. I don't want to hear about witch hunts, bias, etc. A Grand Jury has indicted him. Regardless of whether the initiation of proceeding was "politically motivated" (and I truly don't care at this point), they obviously found enough to charge him. So: why don't any of you care?
3) Trump supporters can take your charges of political motivation and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Trump bullied his way through life, legal proceedings, his presidency. You reap what you sow. Ya'll were the first ones to chant "lock her up" before the Trump v. Clinton election and then POOOF! magically forgot about all your hysterial allegations after the elections. The very definition of political motivation . . . The entire Comey thing and entire hysterical overreaction by Trump supports. So SUCK.IT.UP.

Not true. We are saying it is not a crime. Big difference.
I will wait to see the indictment to look at specific details, but if Bragg is hanging his hat on the whole hush money deal:
a. It is not illegal to pay hush money. Most important thing.
b. If he is claiming he did this because of the upcoming election - good luck with that. He would have to prove intent. Who is to say, if the money was paid, it was to protect him from having his wife learn about it. And, if Michael Cohen is the witness to testify to this, well LOL. He already testified that Trump was not aware he paid the money.
c. If (b) is true, that is a federal offense, not a NY state offense. And, federal officials declined to prosecute - likely because it wasn't a crime.
d. If (b) is true - statute of limitations has expired.

It has never occurred to you that there could be corroborating evidence showing intent?

It really doesn't matter. There are multiple reasons, so trying to claim a campaign finance violation is weak, and this has already been shown with the John Edwards case.
Now this is a New York case, not federal, and they can't prosecute campaign finance violations. They are trying to claim it was an illegitimate business expense,
but companies pay these sorts of things all the time. I would guess that every media outlet reporting on this indictment has made these payments and listed them as business expenses.

Companies pay off porn stars all the time and claim it as a legitimate business expense? Do tell us which companies.

DP

Companies pay all the time to make problems go away. This could be things that have bad publicity, to computer hacking.

As an aside, until recent memory German companies could claim bribes on their taxes as a business expense which is hilarious.

NY State is not Germany and you still did not name the companies which pay off porn stars as you claimed these.unnnamed companies routinely pay off.

LOL.
You must be aware that our Congress has paid out over $17 million in making sexual harassment cases go away.

That's really not relevant. Trump was not settling a harassment case in the first place. Secondly, he could have legally made the payment to Daniels but instead tried to hide it by falsifying his business records. That's why he has been indicted and no one in Congress has been.

Nothing will ever be ‘relevant’. Not even HB falsifying a gun form and acquiring a gun when he was a convicted felon.

He is currently under investigation. But, those allegations are certainly not relevant to Trump's violations. Too bad that you only have "whataboutisms" and can't carry on a substantive discussion.

There is no precedent for indicting a current or former US president or their family is there?

That is not because they have never violated the law.

This is clearly selective prosecution.

Could you please list the crimes committed by other former presidents? Is it your contention that presidents should be provide complete and total immunity from prosecution? Keep in mind, the crime that Trump is alleged to have committed occurred before he was president.

[Anonymous]

The person on here saying that we should NEVER indict a president is crazy. The whole point of America is not to have a king. If any president should be indicted it's Trump. And I agree that this is to be celebrated. There is nothing more American than this. If you don't like it and want a dictator, there are plenty of other countries. Let Trump have his day in court.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Trump and his supporters are not challenging the substance. They are challenging process. Which means, he did what he's accused of. Guilty people act in this manner.
2) I've yet to hear from Trump or ANY of his supporters why he shouldn't be indicted, on substantive terms. I don't want to hear about witch hunts, bias, etc. A Grand Jury has indicted him. Regardless of whether the initiation of proceeding was "politically motivated" (and I truly don't care at this point), they obviously found enough to charge him. So: why don't any of you care?
3) Trump supporters can take your charges of political motivation and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Trump bullied his way through life, legal proceedings, his presidency. You reap what you sow. Ya'll were the first ones to chant "lock her up" before the Trump v. Clinton election and then POOOF! magically forgot about all your hysterial allegations after the elections. The very definition of political motivation . . . The entire Comey thing and entire hysterical overreaction by Trump supports. So SUCK.IT.UP.

Not true. We are saying it is not a crime. Big difference.
I will wait to see the indictment to look at specific details, but if Bragg is hanging his hat on the whole hush money deal:
a. It is not illegal to pay hush money. Most important thing.
b. If he is claiming he did this because of the upcoming election - good luck with that. He would have to prove intent. Who is to say, if the money was paid, it was to protect him from having his wife learn about it. And, if Michael Cohen is the witness to testify to this, well LOL. He already testified that Trump was not aware he paid the money.
c. If (b) is true, that is a federal offense, not a NY state offense. And, federal officials declined to prosecute - likely because it wasn't a crime.
d. If (b) is true - statute of limitations has expired.

It has never occurred to you that there could be corroborating evidence showing intent?

It really doesn't matter. There are multiple reasons, so trying to claim a campaign finance violation is weak, and this has already been shown with the John Edwards case.
Now this is a New York case, not federal, and they can't prosecute campaign finance violations. They are trying to claim it was an illegitimate business expense,
but companies pay these sorts of things all the time. I would guess that every media outlet reporting on this indictment has made these payments and listed them as business expenses.

Companies pay off porn stars all the time and claim it as a legitimate business expense? Do tell us which companies.

DP

Companies pay all the time to make problems go away. This could be things that have bad publicity, to computer hacking.

As an aside, until recent memory German companies could claim bribes on their taxes as a business expense which is hilarious.

NY State is not Germany and you still did not name the companies which pay off porn stars as you claimed these.unnnamed companies routinely pay off.

LOL.
You must be aware that our Congress has paid out over $17 million in making sexual harassment cases go away.

That's really not relevant. Trump was not settling a harassment case in the first place. Secondly, he could have legally made the payment to Daniels but instead tried to hide it by falsifying his business records. That's why he has been indicted and no one in Congress has been.

Nothing will ever be ‘relevant’. Not even HB falsifying a gun form and acquiring a gun when he was a convicted felon.

He is currently under investigation. But, those allegations are certainly not relevant to Trump's violations. Too bad that you only have "whataboutisms" and can't carry on a substantive discussion.

There is no precedent for indicting a current or former US president or their family is there?

That is not because they have never violated the law.

This is clearly selective prosecution.

Could you please list the crimes committed by other former presidents? Is it your contention that presidents should be provide complete and total immunity from prosecution? Keep in mind, the crime that Trump is alleged to have committed occurred before he was president.

I could but you would delete my post and lock my account (see previous deleted posts for some examples if you are seriously interested).

If this Trump indictment is allowed to proceed I am sure several red state DAs will convene grand juries to indict the Biden’s before the 2024 election.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Trump and his supporters are not challenging the substance. They are challenging process. Which means, he did what he's accused of. Guilty people act in this manner.
2) I've yet to hear from Trump or ANY of his supporters why he shouldn't be indicted, on substantive terms. I don't want to hear about witch hunts, bias, etc. A Grand Jury has indicted him. Regardless of whether the initiation of proceeding was "politically motivated" (and I truly don't care at this point), they obviously found enough to charge him. So: why don't any of you care?
3) Trump supporters can take your charges of political motivation and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Trump bullied his way through life, legal proceedings, his presidency. You reap what you sow. Ya'll were the first ones to chant "lock her up" before the Trump v. Clinton election and then POOOF! magically forgot about all your hysterial allegations after the elections. The very definition of political motivation . . . The entire Comey thing and entire hysterical overreaction by Trump supports. So SUCK.IT.UP.

Not true. We are saying it is not a crime. Big difference.
I will wait to see the indictment to look at specific details, but if Bragg is hanging his hat on the whole hush money deal:
a. It is not illegal to pay hush money. Most important thing.
b. If he is claiming he did this because of the upcoming election - good luck with that. He would have to prove intent. Who is to say, if the money was paid, it was to protect him from having his wife learn about it. And, if Michael Cohen is the witness to testify to this, well LOL. He already testified that Trump was not aware he paid the money.
c. If (b) is true, that is a federal offense, not a NY state offense. And, federal officials declined to prosecute - likely because it wasn't a crime.
d. If (b) is true - statute of limitations has expired.

It has never occurred to you that there could be corroborating evidence showing intent?

It really doesn't matter. There are multiple reasons, so trying to claim a campaign finance violation is weak, and this has already been shown with the John Edwards case.
Now this is a New York case, not federal, and they can't prosecute campaign finance violations. They are trying to claim it was an illegitimate business expense,
but companies pay these sorts of things all the time. I would guess that every media outlet reporting on this indictment has made these payments and listed them as business expenses.

Companies pay off porn stars all the time and claim it as a legitimate business expense? Do tell us which companies.

DP

Companies pay all the time to make problems go away. This could be things that have bad publicity, to computer hacking.

As an aside, until recent memory German companies could claim bribes on their taxes as a business expense which is hilarious.

NY State is not Germany and you still did not name the companies which pay off porn stars as you claimed these.unnnamed companies routinely pay off.

LOL.
You must be aware that our Congress has paid out over $17 million in making sexual harassment cases go away.

That's really not relevant. Trump was not settling a harassment case in the first place. Secondly, he could have legally made the payment to Daniels but instead tried to hide it by falsifying his business records. That's why he has been indicted and no one in Congress has been.

Nothing will ever be ‘relevant’. Not even HB falsifying a gun form and acquiring a gun when he was a convicted felon.

He is currently under investigation. But, those allegations are certainly not relevant to Trump's violations. Too bad that you only have "whataboutisms" and can't carry on a substantive discussion.

There is no precedent for indicting a current or former US president or their family is there?

That is not because they have never violated the law.

This is clearly selective prosecution.

Could you please list the crimes committed by other former presidents? Is it your contention that presidents should be provide complete and total immunity from prosecution? Keep in mind, the crime that Trump is alleged to have committed occurred before he was president.

I could but you would delete my post and lock my account (see previous deleted posts for some examples if you are seriously interested).

If this Trump indictment is allowed to proceed I am sure several red state DAs will convene grand juries to indict the Biden’s before the 2024 election.

So, what you are saying is that you can't list any crimes committed by former presidents. Thanks for clarifying that.

If Biden has violated state laws in any state, red or blue, I hope that he is indicted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Trump going to be a US version of Navalny?

Prosecuted for going against government? Yes.

Trump is not charged with treason. But it is beginning to look more and more like Russia these days in US: charge and jail your political opponent.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Trump and his supporters are not challenging the substance. They are challenging process. Which means, he did what he's accused of. Guilty people act in this manner.
2) I've yet to hear from Trump or ANY of his supporters why he shouldn't be indicted, on substantive terms. I don't want to hear about witch hunts, bias, etc. A Grand Jury has indicted him. Regardless of whether the initiation of proceeding was "politically motivated" (and I truly don't care at this point), they obviously found enough to charge him. So: why don't any of you care?
3) Trump supporters can take your charges of political motivation and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Trump bullied his way through life, legal proceedings, his presidency. You reap what you sow. Ya'll were the first ones to chant "lock her up" before the Trump v. Clinton election and then POOOF! magically forgot about all your hysterial allegations after the elections. The very definition of political motivation . . . The entire Comey thing and entire hysterical overreaction by Trump supports. So SUCK.IT.UP.

Not true. We are saying it is not a crime. Big difference.
I will wait to see the indictment to look at specific details, but if Bragg is hanging his hat on the whole hush money deal:
a. It is not illegal to pay hush money. Most important thing.
b. If he is claiming he did this because of the upcoming election - good luck with that. He would have to prove intent. Who is to say, if the money was paid, it was to protect him from having his wife learn about it. And, if Michael Cohen is the witness to testify to this, well LOL. He already testified that Trump was not aware he paid the money.
c. If (b) is true, that is a federal offense, not a NY state offense. And, federal officials declined to prosecute - likely because it wasn't a crime.
d. If (b) is true - statute of limitations has expired.

It has never occurred to you that there could be corroborating evidence showing intent?

It really doesn't matter. There are multiple reasons, so trying to claim a campaign finance violation is weak, and this has already been shown with the John Edwards case.
Now this is a New York case, not federal, and they can't prosecute campaign finance violations. They are trying to claim it was an illegitimate business expense,
but companies pay these sorts of things all the time. I would guess that every media outlet reporting on this indictment has made these payments and listed them as business expenses.

Companies pay off porn stars all the time and claim it as a legitimate business expense? Do tell us which companies.

DP

Companies pay all the time to make problems go away. This could be things that have bad publicity, to computer hacking.

As an aside, until recent memory German companies could claim bribes on their taxes as a business expense which is hilarious.

NY State is not Germany and you still did not name the companies which pay off porn stars as you claimed these.unnnamed companies routinely pay off.

LOL.
You must be aware that our Congress has paid out over $17 million in making sexual harassment cases go away.

That's really not relevant. Trump was not settling a harassment case in the first place. Secondly, he could have legally made the payment to Daniels but instead tried to hide it by falsifying his business records. That's why he has been indicted and no one in Congress has been.

Nothing will ever be ‘relevant’. Not even HB falsifying a gun form and acquiring a gun when he was a convicted felon.

He is currently under investigation. But, those allegations are certainly not relevant to Trump's violations. Too bad that you only have "whataboutisms" and can't carry on a substantive discussion.

There is no precedent for indicting a current or former US president or their family is there?

That is not because they have never violated the law.

This is clearly selective prosecution.

Could you please list the crimes committed by other former presidents? Is it your contention that presidents should be provide complete and total immunity from prosecution? Keep in mind, the crime that Trump is alleged to have committed occurred before he was president.

I could but you would delete my post and lock my account (see previous deleted posts for some examples if you are seriously interested).

If this Trump indictment is allowed to proceed I am sure several red state DAs will convene grand juries to indict the Biden’s before the 2024 election.

So, what you are saying is that you can't list any crimes committed by former presidents. Thanks for clarifying that.

If Biden has violated state laws in any state, red or blue, I hope that he is indicted.

Jeff, what is the point of deleting some responses if they don't violate the forum policies?